related

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the tool's polymorphic behavior: skill points to heroes, hero points to skill, item points to system. It does not mention ambiguity handling, exact-match behavior, or output format, but the core behavioral logic is well conveyed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single compact sentence with a parenthetical example list that illustrates the behavior without adding fluff. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, and every clause contributes to understanding the tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the low complexity of a single-parameter lookup tool and no output schema, the description covers the essential selection and invocation needs: what input is expected, what types are resolved, and what relationships are returned. The main omissions are the exact return shape and handling of ambiguous names, but these are minor for basic invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter is 'query', and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does this by clarifying that the query is a name and that it may refer to a hero, skill, or catalog item. It stops short of specifying matching syntax or formatting requirements, but for a single string parameter, the semantic guidance is adequate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('cross-reference') and a clear resource scope ('any name'), then explicitly defines the three possible result categories: hero, skill, or catalog item. It also explains the directional connections returned for each type, which distinguishes it from the many sibling retrieval tools like get_hero or get_catalog_entry.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool: whenever a name needs type resolution and relation discovery. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools such as search_all, system_lookup, or get_hero, nor does it state when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.